DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments filed June 4, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amended limitations are generic descriptions of how structure exists in three-dimensional space. The claim recites:
“PW1 and PW2 spatially positioned with respect to one another in x, y, and z axes”. The windings (any windings) exist in three-dimensional space. They take up room and can inherently be plotted in x, y and z coordinates (relative to each other or to a common reference). The claim simply repeats this fact of physical structures.
If I have two apples, they are “spatially positioned” relative to each other in all 3 axes. It doesn’t matter if they are in the same shopping bag, laying on my counter, or randomly thrown in the yard. Their structure exists, can be plotted in the three dimensions, and there is a “with respect to one another” relationship that can be plotted using those dimensions.
Simply stating that they are positioned with respect to one another does not indicate exactly how.
The only guidance is that the spatial positioning is part of how the PW1/w have a mutual inductance of zero or substantially zero. As Thrimawithana discloses the two windings, that they physically exist in three dimensions, and that they have a mutual inductance of zero – the evidence indicates that their placement in space is sufficient to me “positioned with respect to one another” in the three dimensions.
“with a winding lateral displacement”. Lateral displacement defines how far away one winding is from the center of the other. But the claim does not give it any value. It can be zero (perfect alignment), a small value (for acceptable alignment) or large value (inefficient alignment). It doesn’t matter. Thrimawithana discloses the two coils with zero mutual inductance. Therefore, whatever positioning it has for its two windings is sufficient to meet an undefined value of “lateral displacement”.
a winding lateral displacement “relative to a fill factor”. This phrase is effectively meaningless. The fill factor is a ratio of perimeter to cross-sectional area of either winding. Such a factor inherently exists in any winding (including Thrimawithana’s). The claim does not define “relative to”.
The claim effectively says that, “there is an undefined distance between the centers of the two windings that has an unknown relationship to the value of one of the winding fill factors”. The Applicants cannot maintain such broad language and then demand a narrow reading of the prior art.
The Applicants state, “Thrimawithana [] merely discloses coil placement and orientation without disclosing a three-axis positioning of the coils.” (Remarks, page 8). It is unclear what type of “positioning” the Applicants intend to incorporate into the claims. The language of the claim simply describes how things exist in three-dimensions – it does not require calculations ahead of placement.
The Applicants then state, “Thrimawithana [] does not disclose a winding lateral displacement that is relative to a fill factor…” (Remarks, page 9, top). As discussed above, the Thrimawithana windings inherently have a lateral displacement value. This is because this value is undefined in the claim and can be anywhere from negative infinity to positive infinity. The “relative to” is undefined, as the claim does not indicate how one value affects the other. And “fill factor” is just a generic term for the ratio of physical dimensions of one of the windings. The claim does not require that a first winding fill factor is known before hand and is then used in a specific calculation to explicitly define the three axes positioning of a second winding that will exactly produce a zero mutual inductance.
The statement that “[t]here is no disclosure in Thrimawithana [] as to determining a perimeter-area-to-cross-sectional-area ratio, defining such a ratio as a fill factor and using such a fill factor to determine winding displacement as featured in the present invention” (Remarks, page 9) is directed to unclaimed subject matter. None of this functionality is claimed. As noted above, the claim simply states that a fill factor exists (which it would in any winding) and that it has a relationship to the lateral displacement. (any two numbers can inherently be shown to be related).
The amended limitations are descriptive of any three-dimensional winding structures. They do not further limit the claims or overcome the anticipation rejection. The Applicants do not separately argue against the art rejections of the dependent claims (any comments are directed to how the secondary references do not teach the limitations of claim 1 – limitations that are anticipated by Thrimawithana). The art rejections are maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 21 are objected to because:
it is unclear what is meant by “perimeter area”. The perimeter is a length value that indicates how long the exterior border of a structure is. It is not “area”. The perimeter of a 2x5 rectangle is 14 (twice the length plus twice the width) while the area is 10 (length times width). The use of the two terms together does not appear to be correct.
The last phrase of the “structure comprising” amendment is not “structure”. The recitation of “and where the mutual inductance, M12 … is zero or substantially zero” defines a magnetic property of the structure (what it is and where it is). It is the benefit of a specific structure; it is not actually a structural limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 10, 12-17, 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thrimawithana (US 2018/0233953).
With respect to claim 1, Thrimawithana discloses a WPT system (fig 1-5; par 81-105), comprising:
a first primary winding circuit PW1 (bottom half) having a first AC power system AC1 (5), first winding PW1 (9), and a series compensation tuning network (7; see par 84, last sentence);
a second primary winding circuit PW2 (top half) having a second AC power system AC2 (4), a second winding PW2 (8), and a parallel compensation tuning network (6; see par 84, last sentence);
a secondary winding circuit (21) having a load (connected to 3; par 90 discloses that it can be a vehicle battery) and secondary winding SW (10 and/or 11), the SW spatially positioned adjacent to PW1 and PW2 where the mutual inductance between PW1 and SW is not zero and the mutual inductance between PW2 and SW is not zero (par 90; M11 and M22 are not zero to actually transfer power to the secondary); and,
a power control system (shown in figs 2 and 4, labeled “primary controller”; par 88-89, 92, 98) for controlling input AC power to each of AC1 and AC2;
wherein the WPT system comprises a structure to regulate (as the WPT system topology/structure is entirely passive – any regulation is coincidental and/or an inherent benefit/side-effect) the first primary winding circuit with a current from the second primary winding circuit using only voltage induced into the SW from electromagnetic force (since Thrimawithana anticipates the structure of the claim, it is interpreted as having the “structure to regulate” in the same way), such structure comprising:
the PW1 and PW2 spatially positioned with respect to one another in x, y, and z axes (inherent – Thrimawithana’s windings exist in space and are positioned near each other. Their locations can inherently be plotted in three-dimensions)
with a winding lateral displacement (no range of acceptable values is given – for whatever lateral displacement Thrimawithana’s windings have, it anticipates this limitation)
relative to (undefined – no actual relationship or equation is stated in the claims)
a fill factor (an inherent numerical description of the shape of an obvious), where the fill factor is a ratio between a winding perimeter area relative to a winding cross-sectional area,
wherein the mutual inductance, M12, between PW1 and PW2 is zero or substantially zero (par 89 – this phrase is not “structure”);
the first/second primary winding circuits are physically decoupled (see fig 1- the two primary winding circuits do not touch); and
a load current of the secondary winding circuit [is] independent of a source voltage of the secondary primary winding circuit (this is descriptive of the topology/structure – since Thrimawithana anticipates the structure, it would have the same independent current benefit).
As previously discussed (and not rebutted by the Applicants), the claim is directed to an entirely passive WPT system. The two AC sources, the three tuning networks and the three winding circuits are not controlled – they just are. The specification (par 60-62) describes inherent equations that describe the electrical operation of the WPT system. Since Thrimawithana anticipates the structure, it follows that it would abide by the same electrical/magnetic laws and be represented by the same equations.
The amended limitations define how the windings are “structure to regulate”, but do not recite any actual regulation or control. The amended limitations, as noted above, are inherent physical descriptions of structure that exists in space (three-dimensions).
Thrimawithana’ s windings inherently have a ratio between their perimeter and cross-sectional area. This ratio inherently has some relationship to the (undefined) value of winding lateral displacement. If the ratio is 4 and the displacement is 20 – then the displacement is “relative to” the fill factor by being five times higher. The claim does not require that the fill factor is determined beforehand and then inserted into an equation that produces an amount of displacement between the two windings to create zero mutual inductance (where any other value of lateral displacement would not).
With respect to claim 2, Thrimawithana discloses AC1 is a voltage regulated AC power source (par 92, “primary [] bridge converters [] driving the primary 20 [] LCL networks, are controlled to produce voltages”).
With respect to claim 3, Thrimawithana discloses AC2 is a current regulated AC power source (par 89, “primary side converters generate a controller current [] in the primary windings”).
With respect to claim 4, Thrimawithana discloses the series compensation tuning network includes a capacitor (see fig 4, Cpi,2; par 98) in series with PW1.
With respect to claim 5, Thrimawithana discloses the secondary winding circuit includes a series compensation tuning network having a capacitor (see fig 2, item Csi,1 and/or fig 4, item Csi,2) in series with SW.
With respect to claim 6, Thrimawithana discloses the parallel compensation tuning network includes a capacitor (see fig 2, Cpt; par 92) in parallel with PW2.
With respect to claim 7, Thrimawithana discloses the AC2 supplies current at a frequency equivalent to a voltage frequency of AC1 (par 88). In at least one embodiment, the two Thrimawithana inverters (AC1, AC2) are tuned to the same fundamental frequency fT.
With respect to claim 8, Thrimawithana discloses AC1 supplies voltage at a characteristic frequency of PW1 (par 88, FT).
With respect to claim 10, Thrimawithana discloses the WPT is an electric vehicle charging system (par 90) and where the first primary winding circuit and second primary winding circuit are ground-mounted (because they are not on a vehicle) and the secondary winding circuit is vehicle-mounted (because it is on a vehicle) .
With respect to claims 12-17 and 19, Thrimawithana discloses the recited limitations, as discussed above in the art rejections of claims 3-8 and 10, respectively. The only difference in the claim is that claims 12-17 and 19 depend directly from 1, while claims 3-8 and 10 depend from each other in ascending order.
With respect to claim 22, Thrimawithana discloses regulation the WPT system, as discussed above in the art rejection of claims 1-3. Thrimawithana discloses the two primary winding circuits and the secondary winding circuit, as discussed above in the art rejection of claim 1. Thrimawithana discloses a power control system for controlling input AC power to each of AC1 and AC2, as discussed above in the art rejection of claims 2-3 (see par 92).
Claim 22 repeats much of the same language as claim 1.
Instead of reciting what the topology is configured to regulate, claim 22 gives this configuration to the primary winding circuit. This is ineffective to impart any narrowing structural limitations into the claim. The winding is a passive inductor – a piece of mental wound in a coil. This is its configuration. That the Applicants have observed that a proximate secondary primary winding can have an effect on the first to regulate its current does not change/affect the structure of the first primary winding circuit. The ability to regulate the first primary winding circuit is provided by the entire WPT – the structure of all the components and their relative positions (and being physically decoupled) – it is not a function of just the first primary winding circuit structure.
The phrase “configured to [function]” is structural – it is not a functional limitation. It defines structure by what it can accomplish without further modifications. For example, a capacitor is an electronic component with two charged plates separated by a dielectric. This is its configuration. A capacitor can act in different ways in a circuit. For example, an in-series capacitor would act as a high-pass filter while a parallel-connected capacitor would act as a low-pass filter. Different effects achieved by exactly the same structure. The “configuration” does make the capacitor do these other things is given by the circuitry as a whole – not by just the capacitor itself. Similarly, the Applicants’ first primary winding circuit is a passive circuit component (inductor) that reacts to how it is placed in a circuit and what is around it.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thrimawithana.
Thrimawithana discloses one pair of first/second primary windings. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to duplicate the Thrimawithana system to have a plurality of pairs. The mere duplication of parts has not patentable significance because there is new or unexpected result. MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B). By adding more coil pairs, the size of the transmitter will increase, offering a greater chance at achieving alignment (improved coupling to a receiver) and/or the ability to transmit higher amounts of power.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thrimawithana in view of Widmer (US 2015/0170833).
Thrimawithana discloses the WPT system of claims 1 and 10, but does not expressly disclose a sensor to detect a living being. Widmer discloses a WPT comprises at least one sensor (par 79) configured to detect a human or animal within a charging perimeter and wherein the power control system is configured to transfer power at a first power level if a human or animal is within the charging perimeter and at a second power level is a human or animal is outside the charging perimeter (obvious).
Widmer states that a “safety” sensor detects the presence of a human within a certain distance of the wireless power transmission coils. The use of “safety” here obviously means that a corresponding action is taken to ensure the safety of the people approaching a high-power area. This obviously includes reducing power. The Examiner also notes that the claim only broadly numbers the powers – there is no explicit limitation in the claim that these powers are “different” or which is intended to be higher.
Thrimawithana and Widmer are analogous to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely wireless power transmitters supplying power to vehicles. At the time of the earliest priority date of the application, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Thrimawithana to include the safety sensor, as taught by Widmer. The motivation for doing so would have been to protect people that may be near the vehicle as it is being charged/powered.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADI AMRANY whose telephone number is (571)272-0415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-7pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Taelor Kim can be reached at 5712722800 x36. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADI AMRANY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights